Blog for Choice Day 2010: Some of My Favorite Posts

A few posts I enjoyed for various reasons, from bloggers both familiar and completely new to me.

“Choice” as a Feminist Idol – Sungold at Kittwampus, who reminds us that “choice” is pretty empty if it doesn’t include access, justice, rights, autonomy, and self-determination. Likewise, Radical Doula argues that it should be “Blog for Justice Day.”

Trust Women, by bergsie at Kittens Farting Rainbows. Included for the awesome blog title and spunky post.

CBS to Air First Super Bowl Abortion Ad, by Elizabeth Gettelman at Mother Jones, who critiques the premise of the upcoming ad featuring Tim Tebow. [Added: I take issue with this line, however: “and the idea of having an abortion is a horrifying prospect to me, as it is to most pro-choicers, for the record.” Nobody gets to decide or speak for how an individual woman feels or should feel about abortion other than that woman. This is really no better than anti-choicers insisting that all or most women getting abortions are psychologically traumatized, which is not supported by the evidence.]

On the same theme, Trusting Women to Disregard this Ad, by Monica Potts at American Prospect, who notes the false choice the ad will present and concludes, “I’m going to trust women to weigh the undeniably heartwarming tale from a football star against the death, every eight minutes, of a woman in a developing country who tries to exercise choice, too.”

Blogging for Choice: On Trusting (and Not Trusting) Women, by Jill at Feministe reminds us that “Trust Women” doesn’t have to mean you trust every woman to make a great, smart choice, or do what we ourselves would do, or to be more trustworthy than men, it just means that: “So, no, I don’t trust women to always make the right choice or the best choice. And one consequence of that is that I sure as hell don’t trust any other woman (or man) to make the best decision for me about my body.”

Trusting Women, Working for Access, by Jos as Feministing, describing her experience working a hotline for women seeking abortion information and noting that “By saying it out loud, over and over, Dr. Tiller made clear the blatant sexism, the sense of moral superiority inherent in anti-choice organizing and policy.”

Blog for Choice: Trust No One, Especially Not Women – Leigh at Bitch, Please has a nice rant (that’s a compliment) and puts it starkly, “George Tiller had the right idea, and he was gunned down by a domestic terrorist for these two little words: Trust women.”

From the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (and also among those appearing at RHRC) is Silvia Henriquez’s Securing Real Choices Means Going Beyond “Choice,” which argues, “it is time to collectively expand our messaging and embrace a holistic vision for reproductive freedom.”

Coble at Mycropht is a libertarian Christian and not as pro-choice as I would have her (*grin*), but she’s local and I like her and I respect her opinion, especially because they’re usually so considered and so different from the stereotype I often have in mind when I think of religious people talking about abortion. She and I can have a conversation, no Super Bowl ads needed.

Blog for Choice: The Radical Act of Trusting Others by Annajcook at Future Feminist Librarian-Activist, included because it’s a nice post but also because I can’t believe I only just came across this blog from a fellow librarian. I like what she writes here (and if you compare, it’s not so different from what Coble is saying): “Choosing to ‘trust women,’ then, is choosing to ‘trust others': letting go of the burden of decisions that are not ours to make, and allowing those whose lives they directly affect (and who are best positioned to understand the ramifications of a given choice) to bear that responsibility. Because that’s what being human requires: rights and responsibilities.”

Some practical observations about women’s choice as a person who has run a medical office specializing in helping women seriously considering abortion explore all her options: We understand that choice is a fundamental part of being human. Respecting a woman’s autonomy is the only way true trust can be established. Believing in a woman’s ability to make the best choice for her is critical to our ability to provide ‘objective’ information and service about the nuances related to the two basic options available to a pregnant woman (pregnancy termination or birth). Pregnancy termination has options depending on gestational age (how far along in the pregnancy she is). Birth has options too such as choosing to parent or choosing to place the child for adoption.

It has been our experience in the 10 different sites operating our system in 8 different States including 2 in CA and 2 in NY that women seriously considering abortion don’t really ‘want’ one but feel like they ‘need’ one. They are so overwhelmed with the multiple extenuating circumstances associated with the pregnancy that they feel an extreme sense of urgency to solve the dilemma (flight or fight). Supporting a woman’s autonomy through meaningful and customized solutions that address the issues driving her sense of entrapment reflects true empathy and responsible community service.

Without tangible information and support good will and high ideals degenerate into a tool for propagating a political agenda and the further exploitation of vulnerable women. It is my contention that the only way to insulate a woman from overexposure to the polarizing politics associated with abortion is if women’s health service organizations (e.g. abortion providers as well as pro-life Pregnancy Centers) hold themselves and their staff accountable to follow protocols of service designed to deliver those services and information ethically, objectively, the same way every time. This would serve to mitigate personal agendas from manipulating women to either have an abortion or not placing the decision squarely on her shoulders where it has always been.

However, there are two primary barriers to seeing true choice supported each one unique to the political bent of the organization: 1) abortion providers have a vested financial interest in a particular choice unless they offer abortion services for free and do not bill insurance companies for the ‘community service’ and 2) pro-life pregnancy centers while usually free are often emotionally blinded by their religiously driven ethic responsible for their existence ironically blinding them to an ethical application of the services they provide such as ultrasound technology. Only after we begin to believe in the validity of a woman’s decision-making ability after all the options have been put on the table, including long term support structures should she choose to parent (something both sides have trouble doing by the way) will the infiltration of the political debate become obsolete where organizations touch lives.